About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
at damage control. u.n. ambassador susan rice's trip to capitol hill, she and the acting cia director, michael morel, meeting with republican senators john mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsay graham, who were not pleased with what they heard. >> it is clear that the information she gave the american people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. it was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans who are fully aware that people don't bring mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations. >> in a statement after the meeting, ambassador rice said that neither she nor anyone in the administration intended to mislead the american people. but the breaking news concerns the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting direct
there was some cia activity there. what exactly it was and what the cia's told involvement was, why there was a consulate there, wasn't even a consulate, didn't do normal consulate duties. what was it all about? by won't know until the investigation is completed and released. >> senator ayotte said when you're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the ameri
're even more concerned, centers around the information that the cia had just after the attack about possible involvement in the benghazi attack that killed ambassador chris stevens and those three other americans. now, ambassador rice did not make reference to this information in her talk show appearances. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> b
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)